Toronto Mayor Rob Ford ‘lied under oath,’ Clayton Ruby accuses on second day of conflict of interest hearing

Clayton Ruby attacked Mayor Rob Ford’s credibility in the second day of his conflict of interest hearing, assailing a “peculiar” understanding of the law that is “not believable” coming from someone who has been on council for a dozen years.

The litigator went so far as to assert the mayor “lied under oath” on Wednesday and “danced back” on the stand when he allegedly sensed that something he had said earlier could be problematic.

The mayor’s interpretation that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies when both the city and a councillor have a financial stake in a matter “conveniently excuses” the actions that have brought him before a court, Mr. Ruby argued: That he allegedly broke the rules when he spoke and voted to relieve himself from reimbursing $3,150 in donations to his private football foundation that the integrity commissioner said were obtained inappropriately.

To believe that, Mr. Ruby says, the mayor would have to assert that he didn’t receive the councillor handbook every time he was elected, and did not read the act.

“It is simply not believable that he would do that again and again, solemnly swear accordance to an act that he simply has never read. Not believable,” Mr. Ruby told Justice Charles Hackland in the University Avenue courthouse.

Mr. Ruby said the mayor “lied under oath” when he was asked about using his mayor business card to solicit donations to his private foundation.

Alan Lenczner, the mayor’s lawyer, objected to “this kind of overplay” and said it was unnecessary.

Justice Hackland and Mr. Ruby got into some discussion about whether a councillor could speak or vote on any report from the integrity commissioner of which he or she is the subject. Mr. Ruby submitted that a member of council could not, because the potential of a pecuniary interest exists. “That would have a sweeping effect, for sure,” said Justice Hackland. “That is the existing law,” replied Mr. Ruby.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mayor in court

A moment of levity

The courtroom enjoyed a moment of levity when Mr. Ruby asked Mr. Ford to explain what the city’s financial interest could have been when he recused himself from a matter that had to do with appointing Councillor Shelley Carroll, over his brother Councillor Doug Ford, to a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority project. “My brother would be more fiscally responsible than Shelley Carroll, so it would save the city money,” said Mr. Ford. The audience burst out laughing. “That’s your answer?” asked Mr. Ruby. “Absolutely,” replied Mr. Ford.

Pointed exchanges

A handful of pointed exchanges between Clayton Ruby and the mayor punctuated the four-hour cross-examination. Early on, when Mr. Ruby referenced a crucial passage in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that the mayor said he had never read it, the litigator sounded incredulous. “You had to have read that before. It’s the Municipal Conflict of Interest,” he said. “You read it to me, but I’ve never read it,” replied the mayor, who moments later stared blankly at Mr. Ruby. “Taking a moment to think?” the lawyer inquired. “Is that a statement or question you’re asking of me?” the mayor countered. Later, when examining the mayor’s reliance on city lawyers to tell him when he has a conflict, despite agreeing it’s his responsibility, Mr. Ruby asked, “do you agree you have a special responsibility to lead in this area?” Mr. Ford: “Not special, I just get one vote. I’m just a member of council. I don’t consider myself special.” And later still, Mr. Ruby asked if he was embarrassed by the criticism from integrity commissioners. “I’m not embarrassed about my job or my political career. I think I’ve done very well at it,” said Mr. Ford.

Natalie Alcoba, National Post

Mr. Ruby’s remarks come a day after a four-hour cross-examination of Mr. Ford, during which the mayor largely stuck to his message while on the witness stand in the largest courtroom in the city.

“I define a conflict of interest if it’s both financially beneficial to the city and financially beneficial to myself,” Mr. Ford said yesterday. “There is no interest for the city. This is just my personal issue.” Even when Mr. Ruby argued he went by a different definition on May 12, 2010, when the mayor declared a conflict of interest regarding a separate breach by him of councillor’s code of conduct, Mr. Ford stuck to his message.

“On that day you understood the simple principle, if the report is about Rob Ford you can’t take part in the debate. Yes?” said Mr. Ruby.

“No,” the mayor said. “I heard your voice,” Mr. Ruby continued. “I heard you speak the words. Did you understand the words you were speaking?” The mayor said he must have had a rationale at the time but Mr. Ruby pressed further, suggesting Mr. Ford “never believed” he could speak and vote on a matter in which he had a personal financial interest.

“I suggest to you that you were [in February] just fed up with the repeated condemnation of your actions by yet another integrity commissioner, and you thought you could eventually stonewall it and persuade council, as a newly elected, popular mayor, to reverse it. That is why you spoke.”

“That’s not true,” the mayor insisted. “That’s not true.”

“Mayor Ford wants this hearing to be about kids and the good work he does,” Mr. Ruby told the court. “That is not what this hearing is about… The issue is the integrity of what Mayor Ford did.” The act states that a councillor must declare if he or she has a pecuniary interest in “any matter” that is before council.

But Alan Lenczner, the mayor’s lawyer, says integrity has nothing to do with it. He argues that the city never had the authority to impose the sanction it did on Mr. Ford, and that the mayor had every right to get up and speak in his own defence that day. If there is a breach, and he disputes that fact, he considers it to be an error in judgment.

“This is not a conflict, in the proper term, as it’s understood with a piece of city business. There is no lack of transparency, which is what the municipal conflict of interest is all about,” said Mr. Lenczner.